Hello, [added some more context again] On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 03:14:43PM +0000, David Howells wrote: > > > - *p |= mask; > > > + if ((*p & mask) == 0) > > > + *p |= mask; > > Care to fix the double space here while touching the code? > > > > I think the more natural check here is: > > > > if ((~*p & mask) != 0) > > *p |= mask; > > > > Might be a matter of taste, but this check is equivalent to > > > > *p != (*p | mask) > > > > which is what you really want to test for. > I would argue that this is less clear as to what's going on. OK, I admit that this equivalence is not obvious. Then maybe let the compiler find the equivalence and do: - *p |= mask; + if (*p != (*p | mask)) + p |= mask; ? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
